统计与数据科学学院知识库

在新型冠状病毒肺炎、国际政治冲突和国际市场动荡等因素的冲击下，实行宽松的货币政策刺激我国经济稳健复苏是必要的。因此，需要关注货币政策调控宏观经济目标的非对称效应，以便有针对性地实行稳健的货币政策。本文利用2001年12月到2023年9月中国经济政策不确定性指数、国房景气指数、名义GDP增长率、居民消费价格环比指数、银行间7天同业拆借利率和广义货币供应量的月度数据，采用门限向量自回归（TVAR）模型分析了在不同的经济增长速度、经济政策不确定和房地产市场发展方向下，我国实行货币政策对产出和价格的非对称影响。

本文的主要结论为：（1）在经济增长较慢的时期，数量型货币政策对经济增长的刺激会产生明显的时滞性；在经济政策环境不稳定的情况下，数量型货币政策调控经济增长几乎是无效的；房地产市场朝着不景气的发展会干扰数量型货币政策调控经济增长的效率。而这些因素不会削弱价格型货币政策的效率。相反，价格型货币政策在这些逆环境下，对经济增长的调控效果反而会更加高效。（2）数量型货币政策对物价水平的刺激或者抑制效果更加稳定。经济政策不确定和房地产市场景气程度的变化方向几乎不会引起数量型货币政策调控物价水平的非对称效应，经济增长速度对数量型货币政策调控物价水平造成的非对称效应的程度也较小。但是价格型货币政策调控物价水平的非对称效应比较明显。

有鉴于此，本文认为：（1）若以刺激经济增长或抑制经济过热为主要目标，央行应当使用价格型货币政策工具为主，数量型货币政策工具为辅；若以刺激或抑制物价水平为主要目标，央行应当使用数量型货币政策工具为主，价格型货币政策工具为辅。（2）央行在实行货币政策时，应当重视经济增长速度、经济政策不确定以及房地产市场景气程度的变化方向对货币政策调控效果带来的非对称效应。应当及时关注相关宏观因素的变化，如经济增长速度、经济政策不确定以及房地产市场景气程度的变化方向，以便对货币政策工具进行合适的结构性调整。

Under the impact of the new coronavirus epidemic, international political conflicts and international market turmoil, it is necessary to implement loose monetary policy to stimulate the steady recovery of China 's economy. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to the asymmetric effect of monetary policy effect on macroeconomic objectives, so as to implement sound monetary policy in a targeted manner. Based on the monthly data of China's economic policy uncertainty index, national housing prosperity index, nominal GDP growth rate, consumer price chain index, inter-bank 7-day interbank lending rate and broad money supply from December 2001 to September 2023, this paper uses threshold vector autoregressive (TVAR) model to analyze the asymmetric impact of China 's monetary policy on output and price under different economic growth rate, economic policy uncertainty and real estate market development direction.

The main conclusions of this paper are as follows: (1) In the period of slow economic growth, the stimulation of quantitative monetary policy to economic growth will have obvious time lag; in the case of unstable economic policy environment, quantitative monetary policy is almost ineffective in regulating economic growth. The depressed development of the real estate market will interfere with the efficiency of quantitative monetary policy in regulating economic growth. These factors will not weaken the efficiency of price-based monetary policy. On the contrary, price-based monetary policy will be more efficient in regulating economic growth in these adverse environments. (2)The effect of quantitative monetary policy on stimulating or inhibiting price level is more stable. The uncertainty of economic policy and the change direction of the real estate market prosperity will hardly cause the asymmetric effect of quantitative monetary policy on the price level, and the degree of asymmetric effect of economic growth rate on the price level caused by quantitative monetary policy is also small. However, the asymmetric effect of price-based monetary policy on regulating the price level is more obvious.

In view of this, this paper argues that: (1)If the main goal is to stimulate economic growth or curb economic overheating, the central bank should use price-based monetary policy tools, supplemented by quantitative monetary policy tools; if the main goal is to stimulate or suppress the price level, the central bank should use quantitative monetary policy tools, supplemented by price-based monetary policy tools. (2)When implementing monetary policy, the central bank should pay attention to the asymmetric effect of economic growth rate, economic policy uncertainty and the direction of the real estate market boom on the effect of monetary policy regulation. It is necessary to pay attention to the changes of relevant macro factors, such as economic growth rate, economic policy uncertainty and the direction of the real estate market boom, so as to make appropriate structural adjustments to monetary policy tools.